• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Young Hillsong Church congregant who mocked vaccine dies of COVID

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I think this is the issue you're having. People can make sound and unsound decisions with all the data in the world.

The data isn't "scripture."

What information should we use to make these sorts of decisions aside from the available data?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Unveiled Artist said:
"Take side affects such as heart problems and blood clots to make it direct and simple and commonly repeated."

The blood clots were 6 in about 1,000,000 among a select group of people. And that was just one of the vaccines. Frankly that was fairly minimal as a risk.

The risk of getting infected is vastly worse. The risk imposed onto others because of the bad reasons to not get the vaccination is immoral and anti-social. Even Sean Hannity begged his viewers to get vaccinated last week after months of being a pundit critical of it.

It's been right wing disinformation that has pushed the anti-vac movement and it is causing all sort of ripple effects on our society and economy.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
So what do you know that informs your decision not to get vaxxed?
Testimonies from people who have suffered side effects and my dad may be one of those. But who can prove it? If someone does have health problem shortly after taking the vaccine, how do you know whether it was due to the vax or just bad luck?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
We all use our own experience to evaluate the world. I said from the beginning I was speaking generally, based on my experience literally speaking with unvaccinated people and listening to their reasons. Maybe there's a whole group of undiscovered unvaccinated people who have fabulous, evidence-based reasons for the lack of vaccination. I haven't seen it.

Yes. It becomes a problem when used to judge others harshly.

Well, if you and an unvaccinated person read the same CDC source and both of you left with the choice to vaccinate or unvaccinated I don't see either of you misinformed. You guys can say the other made the wrong choice, so be. But its the same information.

You're generalizing, though. It's not based on facts since we don't know the whole world population of antivaxxers and unvaccinated to really judge.

I keep repeating it because you keep making the same baseless claim and not giving any evidence for it.

If you want me to stop asking you to substantiate your claims, stop making them?

What else do you want that you will accept?

I didn't say you implied that. Other people did.

{quote] The government has the ability to tell us what we want to hear and see and censoring is one of many ways to do it. I don't know where you live (since it depends on where we are from) but in the US it's heavily one-sided.

I live in the US. It's "heavily one-sided" because the evidence is heavily one-sided. For the same reason that the scientific community endorses a round earth and evolution.[/QUOTE]

Yes. It sure does. What's wrong with the statement?

You don't see it, that's fine. That doesn't invalidate my point and asking me for evidence you will accept doesn't invalidate my point either.

Ditto. Please stop making claims you can't support.

That you will accept.

What information, specifically, are you waiting for? When the FDA provides full approval, will that change your mind? Or will that be another example of government simply telling us "what we want to hear?"

You're talking to the wrong person.

I've never taken vaccines and never will. There will always be some form of side affects so I hope doctors years down the line a stronger idea of the vaccines they are giving. FDA approval is nice as well, but it's a personal decision.

Data isn't scripture. People can make decisions with "divine" factual data that are contrary to the majority.

I plan to lose no sleep over it either. You seemed to be taking personal offense at my line of questioning, with accusations that I'm "cornering" you.

No need to curse then.

Cornering meaning you're asking for reasons to throw me off because I can't give any you accept.

It's a logical fallacy. That's all that means-an observation based on the conversation.

I suspect that if and when herd immunity were actually reached, you'd see "provaxxers" care much less about antivaxxer silliness. Currently we're not there and a disturbing number of people are not getting vaccinated because of misinformation they've been told, so that becomes more of a concern.

Yeah. Which makes provaxxers a bit hypocritical in their logic.

One because all the people getting COVID, they say, are unvaccinated people... so why care about them then?

Why care about the dying if they are all unvaccinated?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
They aren't good reasons because the chances of those things happening to a person who gets vaccinated are extremely small, particularly when compared with the risk of serious medical complications if a person actually gets COVID. That, for the second or third time, is why the CDC and WHO and similar organizations continue to recommend vaccination to the public after having evaluated the incidences of the side effects you mentioned.

They are good reasons "and" the chances are rare.

They continue to recommend vaccination "and" they are looking into these rare life threatening side affects.

They are taking these rare side affects very very seriously instead of pushing them under the rug. I can't blame the unvaccinated who do the same.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes. It becomes a problem when used to judge others harshly.

I don't "judge people harshly" for believing misinformation. Again, I talk to such people all the time, literally in my job.

What else do you want that you will accept?

A legitimate evidence-based reason based on empirical data and accurate risk assessment.

Yes. It sure does. What's wrong with the statement?

What's wrong with the statement is that you're implying bias or censorship when in fact scientific organizations are simply presenting the facts and their professional, evidence-based analysis of the data. Again, this is the connection to movements like flat earthers and YECs. You project bias or censorship onto reputable scientific organizations when they simply present the objective evidence.

That you will accept.

Or that scientific professionals who study the subject for a living will accept. I'll stick with them.

Data isn't scripture. People can make decisions with "divine" factual data that are contrary to the majority.

Thus far, you haven't presented any such data. You've discussed side effects and I've now repeatedly explained that such things are exceedingly uncommon.

No need to curse then.

I curse routinely. Don't take it personally.

Cornering meaning you're asking for reasons to throw me off because I can't give any you accept.

It's a logical fallacy. That's all that means-an observation based on the conversation.

Then you're misusing the term "logical fallacy."

Yeah. Which makes provaxxers a bit hypocritical in their logic.

One because all the people getting COVID, they say, are unvaccinated people... so why care about them then?

Why care about the dying if they are all unvaccinated?

It doesn't make them hypocritical, you're just confusing two different things.

I care about other human beings and their well-being whether they're vaccinated or not. Some of my friends and family are unvaccinated. I love them. Their vaccination status doesn't change that.

What I said was a comment about caring in general about antivax rhetoric. I suspect that concern about antivax rhetoric would reduce if we reached herd immunity. For the same reason most people don't care that much about flat earthers. They have zany beliefs, but very little impact.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
They are good reasons "and" the chances are rare.

Incorrect. They aren't good reasons because the chances are rare.

They continue to recommend vaccination "and" they are looking into these rare life threatening side affects.

Incorrect. They continue to recommend vaccination because they already have looked into these rare life threatening side effects and have determined that the benefits outweigh the risks. I already linked one article for you explaining this.

They are taking these rare side affects very very seriously instead of pushing them under the rug. I can't blame the unvaccinated who do the same.

But the unvaccinated aren't doing the same, because if they did...they'd get vaccinated, as that's what the CDC recommends.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
OK great, so then we should use the available data to inform our decisions. Great. Then we should get vaccinated. :thumbsup:

The first part, yes. Vaccinated and unvaccinated person alike have the available data and make decisions congruent to their situation and that data.

The second part, it depends on the person. Should-no.... not everyone agrees on my criteria morality so I don't impose it on others. It would be beneficial for many to, though. For example, someone working in the hospital would benefit. People traveling would as so those working around lots of people may feel it helps. Working with children would ideally be required. I think teachers need to take their TB shots anyway, so. Those with compromised immune systems would benefit.... or just getting it because they feel like they will catch COVID and spread it.

It highly depends on how much a person believes they are at risk of catching it asymptomatic and symptomatic to take that choice into consideration.

I see no issues with it.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
(I read) what I mean is, how do you (or provaxxer) solve where to put the unvaccinated so we won't potentially infect other unvaccinated people?

How do you deal with the unvaccinated? (Or what people call antivaxxers)?

I've never got a direct answer. It's one thing to complain about antivaxxers but it's another to form some sort of solution or its just making noise as a group.

Today's Australian news, proposals to admit only vaccinated into sporting venues.
Add this to the school requirements, and air travel requirements etc and you begin
to shift the vaccination-dial. You need what for effective coverage, 80% - 90% ?
We could get there without abusing democracy.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
The first part, yes. Vaccinated and unvaccinated person alike have the available data and make decisions congruent to their situation and that data.

Incorrect. Unvaccinated folks, for the most part, do not take the available data accurately into consideration in making their decision. They're routinely unaware of the data, or worse, are aware of it but believe it's fake. That's my point.

The second part, it depends on the person. Should-no.... not everyone agrees on my criteria morality so I don't impose it on others. It would be beneficial for many to, though. For example, someone working in the hospital would benefit. People traveling would as so those working around lots of people may feel it helps. Working with children would ideally be required. I think teachers need to take their TB shots anyway, so. Those with compromised immune systems would benefit.... or just getting it because they feel like they will catch COVID and spread it.

It highly depends on how much a person believes they are at risk of catching it asymptomatic and symptomatic to take that choice into consideration.

I see no issues with it.

For someone who sees no issues with vaccination, you have a weirdly oppositional stance toward it.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Wow. None of that here-at least on the street level since I don't drive and haven't gone out the area in near 10 years by public transport. My co-worker believes in the 5G myth but I don't know much about it. She also believes the end of the world is happening from the book of revelations so.

Heh. I have a friend who believes that COVID is a divine punishment, so :shrug:

Wow. I never heard of those. I never took vaccines other than the required ones in elementary school. So I have no inherent issues with them in their purpose.

Really? Because they’re said so often that it’s pretty much the “face” of the movement. More or less. Pretty sure I’ve had all my childhood ones. I often skip the flu one unless there’s a particularly deadly strain but otherwise follow my GPS advice

I honestly don't know. I stay away from all of that. I would have never known if not for my being told, the mask mandate, and RF.

Geez, really? Not even the news or Google newsfeed?
Although I’ll admit once I accidentally missed an announcement of mask mandates. But since I was at work I just took one of theirs

There are unvaccinated that are not antivaxxers and made intelligent sound decisions not to vaccinate based on whatever reasoning and facts (not misinformation) they came across. While a minority, that doesn't mean its not true.

If a person has allergies or if their GP recommended they take one vaccine over another, then fair enough. That can happen. But to choose not to vaccinate (polio, measles, mumps etc) without a proper medical reason is not a sound intelligent choice.

But no, I don't get myself involved in all of that. Which is good and I think that would be for other people's well-being... and I do not believe it should be justified by "we are thinking of other people not just ourselves." That's a mantra I see on television on lot and it spread like wildfire.
People be people. Selfish and oftentimes idiotic, I’m afraid
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm going to bow out of the conversation for the remainder of the evening; it's been a revealing set of interactions.

I may pick it up tomorrow, who knows.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
That’s the best prevention for Covid because it puts you in a low risk situation.
No it doesn’t. Your immune system can combat many things. Many people young and old relied on their immune system alone. Again when the first strain broke out, many people recovered. That’s looking less and less likely with more infectious and severe strains. That likelihood will only increase the longer we allow it to
 
Top